The Chairman of the Constitution and Legal Committee of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) has disagreed with the former Supreme Court Justice, Justice William Atuguba’s, criticism of the Assin North MP, Gyakye Quayson’s, dual citizenship case.
According to Frank Davies, the retired Supreme Court justice has succumbed to the same misconception about the case that the majority of people have.
This, he says, is quite unfortunate.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Tuesday, October 24, Frank Davies said, “On this call alone, he has misjudged and misconstrued his interpretation of what happened in Gyakye Quayson’s case.”
Mr. Davies’ comments come after Justice Atuguba, in a speech during a public lecture on Tuesday, labeled the court’s decision in Gyakye Quayson’s case as “scandalous.”
He argued that the Supreme Court should not have taken on the case in the first place.
He contended that the matter had already been adjudicated by the High Court, and the Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with it contradicts a fundamental principle of law.
Justice Atuguba insisted that the proper course of action for the Supreme Court should have been to execute the High Court’s decision rather than initiate a new trial.
But Mr Davies disagrees with Justice Atuguba’s views.
He explained that the issue of the election petition in the High Court was for the interpretation of Article 94 (2A) of the 1992 Constitution which means that Gyakye Quayson was not eligible to hold himself out for election when at the time of the close of nomination, he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.
According to Mr Davies, the case in the Supreme Court was not about determining any case in the High Court.
He added that if Justice Atuguba had taken pains to read the case, he would not have made such pronouncements.
This, he noted was because “the case evolves interpreting Article 94 (2A) which has not received any authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court”, adding that the issue of Res Judicata et non quieta movere does not apply because it was not on the strength of Article 94 1A.
This, he says therefore gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law which is exactly what they did.
On the other hand, the Director for Conflict Resolution with the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba, speaking on the same show, sided with Justice Atuguba in his comments on the Gyakye Quayson case.
